I don't think that's an excuse. If you leave something absolutely vital out of your movie and then say "we'll get to it in the sequel," you still have a movie with a huge missing piece. Film series are fine, but each installment has to be self contained to an extent. The plot doesn't necessarily have to be wrapped up in each film but they still have to address things, especially things of this magnitude. Making it the focus of the next film doesn't change the fact that we cut from a destroyed metropolis to Superman smiling and joking with his mom and then cut to Metropolis where everything looks fine and like it's business as usual. Even if they pick it up in the next film, the fact that it's not addressed at all in the first one is a flaw with that movie.

I apologize for continually making this comparison, but The Avengers didn't save addressing the destruction in their climax for the sequel and it only made the film stronger.

Maybe you were meant to watch this and future films back to back? Besides Star Wars did exactly the same thing. In A New Hope, Luke was given this awesome weapon and told about this "Force" and this grand legacy of Jedi Knights he's part of. Yet, that was barely explored in that film by itself. He uses a lightsaber once for barely 5 minutes and the force only in the Death Star trench run. When Empire Strikes Back happened along with Return of the Jedi we only see Luke really embrace his legacy and the lightsaber as well as using the force to the best of his ability. Bottom line is, Luke's story fleshed out in the sequels. Not everybody has to follow "some set of rules" when it comes to coming up with how the movie goes. Some things are just too big to be explored in one movie. As for that scene of the next minute being at Kent Farm, anybody could tell considerable time has passed.

Maybe you were meant to watch this and future films back to back? Besides Star Wars did exactly the same thing. In A New Hope, Luke was given this awesome weapon and told about this "Force" and this grand legacy of Jedi Knights he's part of. Yet, that was barely explored in that film by itself. He uses a lightsaber once for barely 5 minutes and the force only in the Death Star trench run. When Empire Strikes Back happened along with Return of the Jedi we only see Luke really embrace his legacy and the lightsaber as well as using the force to the best of his ability. Bottom line is, Luke's story fleshed out in the sequels. Not everybody has to follow "some set of rules" when it comes to coming up with how the movie goes. Some things are just too big to be explored in one movie. As for that scene of the next minute being at Kent Farm, anybody could tell considerable time has passed.

But the trouble is there was zero acknowledgement of the death and destruction in its aftermath. To continue with the Star Wars analogy, if the force represents the death and destruction, then what transpired in Man of Steel is the equivalent of the lightsaber not making an appearance in A New Hope.

But the trouble is there was zero acknowledgement of the death and destruction in its aftermath. To continue with the Star Wars analogy, if the force represents the death and destruction, then what transpired in Man of Steel is the equivalent of the lightsaber not making an appearance in A New Hope.

I foresee plenty of flashbacks to the events of Man of Steel in the sequel which will become important plot devices. The force wasn't even used that much in A New Hope either.

Besides Star Wars did exactly the same thing. In A New Hope, Luke was given this awesome weapon and told about this "Force" and this grand legacy of Jedi Knights he's part of. Yet, that was barely explored in that film by itself. He uses a lightsaber once for barely 5 minutes and the force only in the Death Star trench run. When Empire Strikes Back happened along with Return of the Jedi we only see Luke really embrace his legacy and the lightsaber as well as using the force to the best of his ability. Bottom line is, Luke's story fleshed out in the sequels.

That's not exactly the same thing. Those are plot details, which isn't the same thing as addressing and dramatizing the things that happen in your movie. Yes, the lightsaber and the Jedi order and the force weren't delved into in great detail in the first movie, there were there to be little story hooks and lay the ground work for the plot of the sequels, but they were still addressed and dramatized within the first film. The lightsaber was shown as Luke's only link to a father he never knew with a past that was hidden from him, the Jedi order was shown to be the great destiny that Luke had always hoped for and learning of it changed his life forever, the force was this great mysterious thing that gave us a glimpse of a larger world and what Luke might one day become. We didn't get all of the answers, but these things were still addressed in the first movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smallville fan

Not everybody has to follow "some set of rules" when it comes to coming up with how the movie goes. Some things are just too big to be explored in one movie.

Addressing the destruction and the seriousness of it isn't too big to be explored in the first movie. I'm not saying have a beginning middle and end for a plot about the reconstruction of Metropolis and how it changed the world. I'm talking about reaction shots, I'm talking about taking a moment to acknowledge what happened and why it matters. You don't have to save that for another movie. You can expand on it in another movie, center the sequel's plot around it, but you can still have it in the first film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smallville fan

As for that scene of the next minute being at Kent Farm, anybody could tell considerable time has passed.

Yes. And? I never argued that the scene at Kent farm took place seconds after the fight. My point is that the movie skipped over that time instead of even taking a moment to address the emotional reality of the aftermath. The movie deemed that to be unimportant. That, I think, is a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smallville fan

I foresee plenty of flashbacks to the events of Man of Steel in the sequel which will become important plot devices.

That's all well and good for the sequel, but that doesn't change the fact that those things aren't in Man of Steel.

I foresee plenty of flashbacks to the events of Man of Steel in the sequel which will become important plot devices. The force wasn't even used that much in A New Hope either.

Would be more than happy to watch the two movies back to back if the sequel pans out as you described!

I honestly don't see why acknowledgement of the death and destruction isn't essential to MoS, central even. When the death and destruction is staged for the reason that Superman has to take Zod's life, for Superman to kill in order to establish his no-kill code. In Snyder's words, the death and destruction is the staging of this Superman's mythology.

Stories need to actually dramatize their content to have a meaningful emotional connection with the audience. Yes, it's obvious that people are dying by the thousands, but if the movie doesn't actually dramatize that then at best it feels false and hollow and and worst it feels cynical, disrespectful, and cold.

You say that you assume that Superman mourned all of it after killing Zod. But the movie doesn't show us this. We cut from Zod's death to Superman smiling and laughing in a conversation with his mother, and the next time we see Metropolis it looks like nothing ever happened. You can see why that feels really weird and makes people uncomfortable, right? You can see why that feels like the movie is completely disregarding the very serious and very obvious implications of what happened, right?

It all boils down to the old adage of "show, don't tell." The saying's as old as dirt that in a story, you have to show your audience what's happening and what it means, not just tell them about it. Having all of that destruction without dramatizing the seriousness and implications of it is telling, not through words per-se but through a very basic shorthand. We see all of this destruction and we're supposed to feel that there are serious stakes and these are serious things, but they don't show us the emotional and psychological toll it takes on our characters, not does it show us the effect these events are having on the lives of the people of Metropolis. They give us images of buildings falling down and basically tell us to feel sad about it. And, sure, on an intellectual level we know it's sad, but we don't feel it in our gut the way we're supposed to, the way a movie is supposed to make us feel.

I really don't think it's a failure on the part of the audience if the filmmakers don't ground the events of their climax emotionally, and instead just throw images at us and expect us to feel things. That doesn't seem, to me, to be very effective storytelling.

THIS!!! I've noticed this trend (maybe it's just me ) in TDKR and now MOS where there's this emotional disconnect that just makes the movie and characters feel off and cold. One example is when Zod and Co. arrived over Metropolis and all the fear among humans (one of the few moments done well) is immediately undone the next day when things just seemingly go back to normal with this looming alien threat. I mean people are going back to work, school etc. like nothing happened and I'm supposed to be invested in this film. You can't raise the question of how would people react if they knew aliens etc.....and not have widespread panic and fear worse when the aliens have threatened you. The big question is posted, clearly a central theme, repeated about a million times and then we get no answers and end on a happily ever after kinda note. WTH? This is only one of the many emotionally and logically detached moments of the film. The thing that drew me (personally) to DC was their attempt to ground their stories as close to reality as possible but the way things are going we might not be able to differentiate between them and the other guys....which is just sad.

Addressing the destruction and the seriousness of it isn't too big to be explored in the first movie. I'm not saying have a beginning middle and end for a plot about the reconstruction of Metropolis and how it changed the world. I'm talking about reaction shots, I'm talking about taking a moment to acknowledge what happened and why it matters. You don't have to save that for another movie. You can expand on it in another movie, center the sequel's plot around it, but you can still have it in the first film.

My point is that the movie skipped over that time instead of even taking a moment to address the emotional reality of the aftermath. The movie deemed that to be unimportant. That, I think, is a problem.

The lack of acknowledgement of the death and destruction ties in with the criticism that the killing of Zod feels tacked on IMO. Since the penultimate act, the Metropolis battle and destruction toll, is set up as the all-compelling reason for Zod to die at Superman's hand, while the happy ever after ending seems to segue more from the Smallville set piece than from the latter.

The pacing and editing issues seem to stem largely from post-Smallville fight too.

The lack of acknowledgement of the death and destruction ties in with the criticism that the killing of Zod feels tacked on IMO. Since the penultimate act, the Metropolis battle and destruction toll, is set up as the all-compelling reason for Zod to die at Superman's hand, while the happy ever after ending seems to segue more from the Smallville set piece than from the latter.

The pacing and editing issues seem to stem largely from post-Smallville fight too.

I thought the pacing was really bad right from the start. The movie absolutely rushed through the character building and expository scenes and lingered a very long time on the action. I nearly got whiplash.

I thought the pacing was really bad right from the start. The movie absolutely rushed through the character building and expository scenes and lingered a very long time on the action. I nearly got whiplash.

I was lovin' the pace and flow until 'release the world engine'. By the time the Zod fight came around, I was exhausted and fidgeting in my seat.

In terms of the death and destruction, some of you may be too young to remember 9/11. I was a month shy of 18 when it happened.

When 9/11 happened, it was a huge shock, to everybody I've spoken to who is North American and was of political conscious age at the time. It took over the entire national dialogue and everything people were discussing beforehand (California energy crisis, etc) faded into the background. My local newspaper published a special afternoon edition, which I've never seen it do at any other time. Classes were replaced by group discussions. In the following days, blood lust took over America. There was a lot of public support to just nuke Afghanistan, and even 2 years later Americans supported an invasion of Iraq (that cost 5,000 American lives and 3 trillion dollars) because a Saudi-led team crashed planes into the WTC. An Indian restaurant I knew in Columbus had its windows smashed, as revenge for 9/11 (A lot of Americans don't distinguish India from Saudi Arabia from Afghanistan).

I myself didn't attack any Indian restaurants, but I did write an irrational editorial for my college newspaper calling for an invasion of Afghanistan in the days following. I was angry the afternoon following the event, almost in tears, but mostly angry rather than sad. I certainly wasn't thinking about going to a place surrounded by death and destruction in every direction, and kissing my new girlfriend for the first time, and then cracking a bad joke "I'm pretty sure that only applies to other people".

As such, we don't need to look to ancient Greece to know how people would react, if we want to be realistic. There is going to be tremendous trauma in the world, as what happened in Metropolis is far worse than what happened in NY on 9/11. With respect to Superman, there will be huge cries of "alien go home" and calls for the government to just nuke him (which would be semi-consistent with the dark knight returns).

That's the way it needs to be if Snyder and Goyer want to be realistic. We'll see what they do. If Superman is just a hero for saving the world, then their realism will be as sound as Jor-El easily beating up Zod or Krypton having a much higher gravity than Earth.

You don't need to beat people up for it to be an action scene. The FBI chasing Lois Lane was very well done, and very convenient to the plot. As was Clark's smashing the sentinel that was going to kill Lois, and then tending to her. Those two are action scenes... they're short, but they raise the heart rate, they're pertinent, and they're fun to watch. I rate them both ahead of Superman vs Zod and the Krypton sequence.

The Krypton sequence is a terrible action sequence, because it's completely nonsensical. I'd rate them as:

ETA: There's also the escape from Zod's ship (added in), which is also a terrible action sequence because Jor-El is the one to save Lois and Clark. It furthers Goyer's idiotic agenda of making Jor-El the greatest hero and character of the story.

In terms of the death and destruction, some of you may be too young to remember 9/11. I was a month shy of 18 when it happened.

When 9/11 happened, it was a huge shock, to everybody I've spoken to who is North American and was of political conscious age at the time. It took over the entire national dialogue and everything people were discussing beforehand (California energy crisis, etc) faded into the background. My local newspaper published a special afternoon edition, which I've never seen it do at any other time. Classes were replaced by group discussions. In the following days, blood lust took over America. There was a lot of public support to just nuke Afghanistan, and even 2 years later Americans supported an invasion of Iraq (that cost 5,000 American lives and 3 trillion dollars) because a Saudi-led team crashed planes into the WTC. An Indian restaurant I knew in Columbus had its windows smashed, as revenge for 9/11 (A lot of Americans don't distinguish India from Saudi Arabia from Afghanistan).

I myself didn't attack any Indian restaurants, but I did write an irrational editorial for my college newspaper calling for an invasion of Afghanistan in the days following. I was angry the afternoon following the event, almost in tears, but mostly angry rather than sad. I certainly wasn't thinking about going to a place surrounded by death and destruction in every direction, and kissing my new girlfriend for the first time, and then cracking a bad joke "I'm pretty sure that only applies to other people".

As such, we don't need to look to ancient Greece to know how people would react, if we want to be realistic. There is going to be tremendous trauma in the world, as what happened in Metropolis is far worse than what happened in NY on 9/11. With respect to Superman, there will be huge cries of "alien go home" and calls for the government to just nuke him (which would be semi-consistent with the dark knight returns).

That's the way it needs to be if Snyder and Goyer want to be realistic. We'll see what they do. If Superman is just a hero for saving the world, then their realism will be as sound as Jor-El easily beating up Zod or Krypton having a much higher gravity than Earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFlamingCoco

^ Exactly. People are on edge. Some think he's the problem, others start cults, while others don't know what to think.

MOS2 could be a masterpiece if the writer/director took a good look at what MOST people didn't like, and then went out of their way to avoid such missteps.

I fully expect scenes like this to show up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Question

But we can't. At least, not for three years.

That's not exactly the same thing. Those are plot details, which isn't the same thing as addressing and dramatizing the things that happen in your movie. Yes, the lightsaber and the Jedi order and the force weren't delved into in great detail in the first movie, there were there to be little story hooks and lay the ground work for the plot of the sequels, but they were still addressed and dramatized within the first film. The lightsaber was shown as Luke's only link to a father he never knew with a past that was hidden from him, the Jedi order was shown to be the great destiny that Luke had always hoped for and learning of it changed his life forever, the force was this great mysterious thing that gave us a glimpse of a larger world and what Luke might one day become. We didn't get all of the answers, but these things were still addressed in the first movie.

Addressing the destruction and the seriousness of it isn't too big to be explored in the first movie. I'm not saying have a beginning middle and end for a plot about the reconstruction of Metropolis and how it changed the world. I'm talking about reaction shots, I'm talking about taking a moment to acknowledge what happened and why it matters. You don't have to save that for another movie. You can expand on it in another movie, center the sequel's plot around it, but you can still have it in the first film.

Yes. And? I never argued that the scene at Kent farm took place seconds after the fight. My point is that the movie skipped over that time instead of even taking a moment to address the emotional reality of the aftermath. The movie deemed that to be unimportant. That, I think, is a problem.

That's all well and good for the sequel, but that doesn't change the fact that those things aren't in Man of Steel.

1)MoS would've already been out on Blu-Ray for some time. Watch it again.
2)No the Jedi, lightsabers and the force etc were barely delved into nor dramatized and addressed in ANH. All we had was the training scene, final Vader vs Obi-Wan duel and the Trench run. Nobody back then, in 1977, knew the Force could be used for levitating, or shooting lightning or for making yourself a blue ghost etc. The film was pretty much the looming threat of the Death Star and running away from the Imperials. Only in Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi we really delve into Jedi stuff and the Force with Yoda and to an extent the Emperor.
3) David Goyer specifically wanted to address all that in the sequel and perhaps make the destruction a plot device.

Quote:

David Goyer: It is our intention that, in success, this would be the zero issue and from this point onward, possible films could expand into a shared universe. In our world, the Man of Steel world, Zack has gone on record saying that we’re implying there are other superheroes in this world. But I don’t know that they’ve come forward yet. The idea is that Superman is the first one. There might be people helping people, but not in costumes, and that Superman comes forward and announces himself to the world. In him announcing himself, he’s the one that changes things.Bleeding Cool: You’re positing a cause and effect?David Goyer: Yes, yes absolutely, in our mind.Bleeding Cool: And so now, Bruce Wayne will feel alright in his ears, where he might not have dressed up like that before. Is that the kind of thinking?David Goyer: Well, yes… there’s definitely… I don’t want to get too in depth. Obviously, Zack and I have had conversations… but there would be a cause and effect. And that would extend to the collateral damage that happened, and to what other countries feel about the fact Superman calls America his home. Man of Steel doesn’t exist in a vaccum.

I'm sure that pretty much screams "reaction shots" and "acknowledgement of the death and destruction" etc. Man of Steel's the cause and Superman/Batman's the effect. All they need to do know is cast their Lex Luthor who'll be pretty much a compelling villain who'll use all that destruction against Supes. With comics, you don't delve into everything in the zero issue.

No the Jedi, lightsabers and the force etc were barely delved into nor dramatized and addressed in ANH. All we had was the training scene, final Vader vs Obi-Wan duel and the Trench run. Nobody back then, in 1977, knew the Force could be used for levitating, or shooting lightning or for making yourself a blue ghost etc. The film was pretty much the looming threat of the Death Star and running away from the Imperials. Only in Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi we really delve into Jedi stuff and the Force with Yoda and to an extent the Emperor.

None of those things have anything to do with what I mean when I say "dramatizing" and "addressing." Addressing and dramatizing aren't the same thing as "telling us every single detail about it." I've described what I mean when I say those things several times.

A New Hope didn't tell us everything about what The Force is and what it can do. But it showed us that it's powerful, it's mysterious, and it holds the secret to Luke's past and Luke's destiny. It didn't just say "the force is a thing" and only use it when the plot required it. It made us feel what the Force is. Thats addressing. That's dramatization. That's what Man of Steel didn't do for the damage done in the third act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smallville fan

David Goyer specifically wanted to address all that in the sequel and perhaps make the destruction a plot device.

I'm sure that pretty much screams "reaction shots" and "acknowledgement of the death and destruction" etc. Man of Steel's the cause and Superman/Batman's the effect. All they need to do know is cast their Lex Luthor who'll be pretty much a compelling villain who'll use all that destruction against Supes.

Okay. But none of that was in Man of Steel. Man of Steel is still severely lacking because of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smallville fan

With comics, you don't delve into everything in the zero issue.

1: Movies and comics aren't the same.

2: You still address and dramatize everything that was in the zero issue.

I'm sure that pretty much screams "reaction shots" and "acknowledgement of the death and destruction" etc. Man of Steel's the cause and Superman/Batman's the effect. All they need to do know is cast their Lex Luthor who'll be pretty much a compelling villain who'll use all that destruction against Supes. With comics, you don't delve into everything in the zero issue.

I get where Goyer is coming from, but wouldn't the #0 issue in Man of Steel's case be a story about the origins of the codex and the foundation of the Kryptonian society (or something similar)? Zero issue is a prequel that provides further background on an existing, established story.

Clark becoming Superman is the DCU's main storyline, because he's the first superhero and him publicly donning the red and blue inspires others to follow suit (pun intended). So technically speaking, Man of Steel is DCU Year Zero.

Back to the death and destruction: If it's compelling enough to be the conceit for Lex's villainy and the starting source of distrust for Batman, all the more it should be posed in relation to these relationships from the beginning. The death and destruction caused is already part of the DCU Superman mythology as it informs Clark's stance on killing.

Back to the death and destruction: If it's compelling enough to be the conceit for Lex's villainy and the starting source of distrust for Batman, all the more it should be posed in relation to these relationships from the beginning. The death and destruction caused is already part of the DCU Superman mythology as it informs Clark's stance on killing.

Indeed. I do predict that audiences might actually be won over and end up siding with Luthor against Superman and agree to pointing fingers at him for all this. If that's the case, then this portrayal of him might actually be the best Lex Luthor ever and will probably steal the title of the definitive Lex Luthor from Clancy Brown/Michael Rosenbaum/Kevin Spacey/Gene Hackman.

Indeed. I do predict that audiences might actually be won over and end up siding with Luthor against Superman and agree to pointing fingers at him for all this. If that's the case, then this portrayal of him might actually be the best Lex Luthor ever and will probably steal the title of the definitive Lex Luthor from Clancy Brown/Michael Rosenbaum/Kevin Spacey/Gene Hackman.

A lot like how sinestro was the most interesting and likeable character in the green Lantern movie.

"We were pretty sure that was going to be controversial," Goyer said. "It's not like we were deluding ourselves, and we weren't just doing it to be cool. We felt, in the case of Zod, we wanted to put the character in an impossible situation and make an impossible choice.

"This is one area, and I've written comic books as well and this is where I disagree with some of my fellow comic book writers - 'Superman doesn't kill'. It's a rule that exists outside of the narrative and I just don't believe in rules like that. I believe when you're writing film or television, you can't rely on a crutch or rule that exists outside of the narrative of the film.

"So the situation was, Zod says 'I'm not going to stop until you kill me or I kill you.' The reality is no prison on the planet could hold him and in our film Superman can't fly to the moon, and we didn't want to come up with that crutch.

"Also our movie was in a way Superman Begins, he's not really Superman until the end of the film. We wanted him to have had that experience of having taken a life and carry that through onto the next films. Because he's Superman and because people idolise him he will have to hold himself to a higher standard."